I'm all for less dependencies but I would personally vote for slf4j-api. Just don't use any underlying implementations like logback or slf4j-log4j bridge. Then people can hookup whatever they want.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Neha Narkhede <neha.narkh...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Basically my preference would be java.util.logging unless there is some > known problem with it, otherwise I guess slf4j, and if not that then log4j. > > +1. My preference is to use java.util.logging to avoid adding an external > dependency, > but I'm not too sure about what's the "standard" out there, so open to > suggestions > on picking a different library. > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We probably need to add a small amount of logging in the new producer and > > (soon) consumer clients. I wanted to have a quick discussion on logging > > libraries before I start adding this in the producer. > > > > Previously we have been pretty verbose loggers and I think we should stop > > that. For clients you mostly don't need to log: if there is an error you > > should throw it back not log it, so you don't need ERROR logging. > Likewise > > I think it is rude to pollute peoples logs with the details of client > > initialization (establishing connections, etc), so you don't need INFO > > logging. However perhaps there is an argument to be made for WARN and > > DEBUG. I think it is perhaps useful to log a WARN when a server breaks a > > connection or metadata initialization fails. It can sometimes also be > > useful to be able to enable debug logging to see step by step processing > in > > the client, which is the case for DEBUG logging. > > > > Here is my knowledge about the state of Java logging: > > 1. Most people still use log4j. The server is using log4j. > > 2. Second runner-up in slf4j. I personally consider slf4j pretty silly > but > > this is perhaps the more flexible choice since people can plug in > different > > stuff. > > 3. java.util.logging ships with the jdk, but for some reason no one uses > > it. > > 4. There is no critical mass around any other logging library. > > > > The context for how to think about this is the following. We are not > trying > > to pick the "best" logging library. Fundamentally logging is pretty > > straight-forward and for our simple use case it is inconceivable that any > > particular library could be much better than any other in terms of > feature > > set. We want the most standard library. My goal is to minimize the > > dependencies of the client and make our basic logging cases work for most > > cases. > > > > Is there a reason not to just the java.util.logging? It comes with the > jdk > > and supports pluggable appenders so people who have some other library > can > > plug that in right? > > > > Basically my preference would be java.util.logging unless there is some > > known problem with it, otherwise I guess slf4j, and if not that then > log4j. > > > > Thougts? > > > > -Jay > > >
